Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 62 of 62

Thread: Gitmo and the lawyers!

  1. #61
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default You're a better man than I...

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    ..I've been doing for the last two hours - starting here and reading through to the end.
    I started and after waiting a couple of minutes for each of the first three pages to load and reading all that mess, decided I didn't want to know...
    Quick reaction was what mentally challenged "general's son" decided to adopt a "legislative" (aka legalistic) methodology in developing a military operational program.
    Well said...
    Looks like the training works - and, on that one, I'll take your word for it. But, it seems to complicate a simpler world - Hague, the GCs and old FM27-10 are not that complex.
    It does work -- and that's because the training is (or was in my day) based on the GC and 27-10 and not on all the new foolishness.
    ...don't approach them with logic because there ain't none.
    Unfortunately true...

  2. #62
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008

    Default Nope,

    You're a better man than I...
    I'm not a better man than you - though probably more patient. Sometimes, I'm a dumb kid who needs a kick out the door to fly and explore new vistas.

    Anyway, the SROE training probably gets near the same point which would be reached by correctly training under a "find, fix, kill" syllogism. Under SROE, I'd guess that a few more Alis and Omars will survive - at the cost of a few more Willies and Joes who won't (a result which revolts me). No way to test that hypothesis, I know.

    In operating environments where hostiles are difficult to distinguish from non-hostiles (Vietnam to present), the "find, fix, kill" syllogism would require even more training - and discernment (right down to the Willie & Joe level). You have an infinitely better grasp of that than I - so, correct if wrong.

    The basis premise of SROE (and the resultant philosophy it spawns) is that the default is defensive and passive. You are the hunted, rather than the hunter. That seems to me the wrong default for a military force because it concedes the offensive to the bad guys.

    So, my default would be wartime rules, going to gendarmerie rules when the situation required them. I think I understand the basic premise of SROE; but I cannot accept it.

    Just because you are a hunter doesn't mean that you kill everthing in the woods. In fact, even though "armed for bear", you might just want to observe - and talk to a coyote if you have a chance (been there, done that - a greater coup than shooting him - done that, been there - and more enlightening). Context and discernment.

    Thanks for the help, in this and other places.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts